I got to play Rex over the weekend and one of the first things that struck me, after the first alliance phase, was whether any game would NOT involve alliances and most likely alliance wins. Our game went 3 vs 3 from turn 2 and stayed that way for the rest of the game (8 turns).

I didn't find this particularly satisfying - 6 players essentially playing a 2 player game. We lost, so were obviously disappointed, but the winners didn't appear overly happy either. Afterwards, my friend who taught the game, mentioned the Betrayal cards, which we didn't use. I can only assume these were FFGs attempt to counterbalance auto alliances and increase the chances of a solo win.

I know Rex is not Dune but as both games are very similar, and share the same lineage, I thought this question was better suited here.

I'm not familiar with Rex, but I always played Dune with the 3-bases for a solo win, 4 for a 2-player win and all 5 for a 3-player win variant. This counteracts the default alliance making mode, and most alliances form just to counterbalance others' alliances. You only enter an alliance when you think you can't win on your own.

I'm not sure if the original intent of the Dune design was for it to be a "team" game, but the rules as written clearly encourage it. It's far, far easier to control 3 strongholds with 2 or 3 players cooperating, than it is for one person to do it alone.

That being said, almost my entire Dune-playing life we've limited alliances to just 2 players each. Three-way alliances feel like they're too much to me, and anything more than three (which is not excluded by the written rules) is just ridiculous.

But with Dune rules as written, getting 3 strongholds by yourself is very, very difficult (almost impossible, unless the other players make blatant mistakes), but getting 3 strongholds with 2 or more players is frequently quite easy - too easy, really. This is why most long-time Dune players have played with house rules that alliances require more strongholds to win, and this rule was officially adopted by the Rex re-implementation.

However, as far as Dune goes, I still think it's much more difficult for one player to control 3 strongholds than it is for a two-player alliance to control 4. So, as a result, solo wins are rarely even attempted (again, unless someone really makes a big mistake leaving the door open for someone else.)

People deal with this in different ways. I have heard of players who just exclude alliances, period, requiring all wins to be solo. I think this would make for very long games that almost always end in stalemate with skilled, conservative players, but I guess I can't really comment since I've never played that way. The Dune players I've played with over 30+ years all accept alliances and alliance wins as a key part of Dune, part of the charm. For these players, finding and negotiating the alliance that can actually win the game is part of the strategic puzzle. I don't think we would play any other way.

This is the default rule in Rex. It didn't dissuade alliance forming. Once one 3-player bloc formed a second formed immediately - it seemed the only reasonable counter-move. Being new to the game and the natural tendency to group together possibly prompted this more than usual.

slashing wrote:

I'm not familiar with Rex, but I always played Dune with the 3-bases for a solo win, 4 for a 2-player win and all 5 for a 3-player win variant. This counteracts the default alliance making mode, and most alliances form just to counterbalance others' alliances. You only enter an alliance when you think you can't win on your own.

I'm not sure if the original intent of the Dune design was for it to be a "team" game, but the rules as written clearly encourage it. It's far, far easier to control 3 strongholds with 2 or 3 players cooperating, than it is for one person to do it alone.

That being said, almost my entire Dune-playing life we've limited alliances to just 2 players each. Three-way alliances feel like they're too much to me, and anything more than three (which is not excluded by the written rules) is just ridiculous.

But with Dune rules as written, getting 3 strongholds by yourself is very, very difficult (almost impossible, unless the other players make blatant mistakes), but getting 3 strongholds with 2 or more players is frequently quite easy - too easy, really. This is why most long-time Dune players have played with house rules that alliances require more strongholds to win, and this rule was officially adopted by the Rex re-implementation.

However, as far as Dune goes, I still think it's much more difficult for one player to control 3 strongholds than it is for a two-player alliance to control 4. So, as a result, solo wins are rarely even attempted (again, unless someone really makes a big mistake leaving the door open for someone else.)

People deal with this in different ways. I have heard of players who just exclude alliances, period, requiring all wins to be solo. I think this would make for very long games that almost always end in stalemate with skilled, conservative players, but I guess I can't really comment since I've never played that way. The Dune players I've played with over 30+ years all accept alliances and alliance wins as a key part of Dune, part of the charm. For these players, finding and negotiating the alliance that can actually win the game is part of the strategic puzzle. I don't think we would play any other way.

Thanks. That fully answers my question. I don't know if I would play again knowing this was the design intent - or at least the most likely outcome of the design as written. The Betrayal cards leave me uneasy. Yes they put a brake on alliance forming but do I really want to win then lose on a random card draw, or steal victory in the same way; the ultimate in your face move? After a 4-6 hour game I could see that leaving a sour taste with all involved for some time afterwards.

This is the default rule in Rex. It didn't dissuade alliance forming. Once one 3-player bloc formed a second formed immediately - it seemed the only reasonable counter-move. Being new to the game and the natural tendency to group together possibly prompted this more than usual.

slashing wrote:

I'm not familiar with Rex, but I always played Dune with the 3-bases for a solo win, 4 for a 2-player win and all 5 for a 3-player win variant. This counteracts the default alliance making mode, and most alliances form just to counterbalance others' alliances. You only enter an alliance when you think you can't win on your own.

If you want to break out of that dynamic for Rex, I think that you have to be comfortable with, at the last minute, cutting someone out of your 3-player, whole-game alliance so that someone doesn't win. For some, that's too mean.

1. I find that Dune contains much more of the "plans within plans" spirit than Rex. As such, it's likely that I'll join an alliance early on with no intent to win with my partner. I'll either take advantage of an ability they have early game or convince them to pay my way/spend more of their resources than they otherwise would. Winning as a pair doesn't feel like team play, but a shared victory when everyone is quick to cut their losses if a better opportunity presents itself.

2. By removing occupancy restrictions, Rex actually adds a way to fight three faction alliances. Unallied factions can team up against the weakest city held by the allied group and all attack together. As such, forming a formal bloc may be less useful than remaining separate.

3. Betrayal card wins aren't truly random. They (typically) require extra planning that can give you away. (Basically, everyone now has a BG-style condition that must be watched for, but not overly feared.) I don't like Rex, so I don't remember if this is included, but the truthtrances and public agreement rules in Dune can be used to discover what condition someone has or prohibit them from playing their card against you. I wouldn't recommend adding betrayals while you're new to the game, but they can add intrigue and subtlety for seasoned players.

4. While I dispute that this is a "team game," the alliances are a central element of play and the game usually ends with a shared victory.

1. I find that Dune contains much more of the "plans within plans" spirit than Rex. As such, it's likely that I'll join an alliance early on with no intent to win with my partner. I'll either take advantage of an ability they have early game or convince them to pay my way/spend more of their resources than they otherwise would. Winning as a pair doesn't feel like team play, but a shared victory when everyone is quick to cut their losses if a better opportunity presents itself.

Totally!!! I could not have said it better.

In the early game, it's frequently all about allying with which ever other player can fill a gap you have in your own situation the best. (e.g. I need cards - what can I offer the Emperor to get him to ally with me?)

By mid-game, hopefully you have the best tactical situation arranged for yourself you can get, and you're looking for the player you can ally with to "Go For The Win". This is a big step in our games of Dune. Two players who think they can do it ally, and it's usually obvious that there's one pair who have a legitimate chance, although a lot of times there are actually 2 pairs who could make a try. The other players try to come up with the best alliance arrangements they can to "Stop The Win". An alliance going for the win usually has to invest a lot, maybe almost everything they have in terms of tokens, spice, cards, and leaders, to "Go For The Win", depending on how well-prepared the defenders are. If they've plotted properly (ideally having drained some resources from their opponents in earlier alliances), they may win. If they don't, one or both of the factions that tried are usually pretty drained, and will probably have to take 3+ turns to recover. Your objective in this situation is to be the faction who did *not* get drained, so you can hop to the next ally and maybe try again.

Games where alliances are extremely stagnant do happen, but you have to know when to break and alliance and move on. So in most cases, I would not say that Dune is a team game in the sense that two people play the whole game together, but rather it's a game about making and breaking those partnerships as needed...

It's worth noting that in this particular game the temporary ceasefire card only came out once (the remaining 3 were all at the bottom of the deck). So there was no chance for the normal renegotiation as the board state changed. (I assume Dune has a similar mechanism)

Thanks for the replies. I should have used shared victory rather than team in my original question. I have no problem with alliances, I just don't like shared victories, in any game. The all allies win rule of Rex (and Dune) alliances is what jars me the most. Are there any variants which change this? Betrayal cards and outlawing alliances would be unnecessary if alliances did not result in a shared win, and the latter robs the game of something I like - the mutual use of allied powers.

But the alliance victory in Dune is very much in the spirit of the source material. It was a 3-way alliance (Harkonen, Emperor, and Guild) versus a 2-way alliance (Atrides and Freman) with the Bene Gesserit trying to play both sides.

So, while a solo victory is much more satisfying; the alliance victory is much more in keeping with Herbert's universe. It is much more than a game system with a Dune skin, it is a game system that implements very well the Dune setting.

But the alliance victory in Dune is very much in the spirit of the source material. It was a 3-way alliance (Harkonen, Emperor, and Guild) versus a 2-way alliance (Atrides and Freman) with the Bene Gesserit trying to play both sides.

So, while a solo victory is much more satisfying; the alliance victory is much more in keeping with Herbert's universe. It is much more than a game system with a Dune skin, it is a game system that implements very well the Dune setting.

I have to disagree. I don't think it matches the final outcome of the novel. Those alliances were in play and set events in motion, but in the end there were greater winners Fremen>Atreides and greater losers Harkonnen-Emperor>Guild.

That being said, whatever your take on the book, it's not something I enjoy in the game, or any game for that matter except co-ops.

There is no mention of it being a house rule, and is listed in the section before the rules rewrite which, incidentally, does describe a more detailed tie-break.

Definitive Victory In the case of a stalemate or some other event that leaves you with no winner, the winner is defined by most Control Points, with ties going to most Army Tokens on board, then most Spice held, then most Treachery cards in hand and finally most leaders alive.

There is no mention of it being a house rule, and is listed in the section before the rules rewrite which, incidentally, does describe a more detailed tie-break.

Definitive Victory In the case of a stalemate or some other event that leaves you with no winner, the winner is defined by most Control Points, with ties going to most Army Tokens on board, then most Spice held, then most Treachery cards in hand and finally most leaders alive.

Those aren't the original rules, just an unofficial rewrite, and that part has been added. Dune has a ton of edge cases that the original rules never cleared up, hence all the rewrites (and house rules). Nothing wrong with house rules of course.

However, the original rules actually go so far as to say: "A player may not claim a solo victory while part of an alliance (except the Bene Gesserit in the case of a successful prediction)." It states the alliance members "have jointly won the game." So it's definitely not in the spirit of the original game to say that one of the alliance members wins "more".

However, the original rules actually go so far as to say: "A player may not claim a solo victory while part of an alliance (except the Bene Gesserit in the case of a successful prediction)." So it's definitely not in the spirit of the original game to say that one of the alliance members wins "more".

Yes I read that. However, that is a clarification stressing that while in an alliance you do not win when you satisfy the normal solo win requirements, not an explicit ban on outright wins; eg I hold 3 strongholds but am allied, therefore I do not win.

However, the original rules actually go so far as to say: "A player may not claim a solo victory while part of an alliance (except the Bene Gesserit in the case of a successful prediction)." So it's definitely not in the spirit of the original game to say that one of the alliance members wins "more".

Yes I read that. However, that is a clarification stressing that while in an alliance you do not win when you satisfy the normal solo win requirements, not an explicit ban on outright wins; eg I hold 3 strongholds but am allied, therefore I do not win.

Although the original victory conditions were only 3 strongholds. I can see how the rule might have been written primarily to confirm that even a "non-contributing" ally shares jointly in the win, but that confirms the intention of firmly joint wins even more.

In any case, my point was merely to let people reading know that both your quotes are not from the actual rules.

Personally I think so many little things can go into an alliance's win given the volatile and multiplayer dynamics, you can't simply boil it down to spice. Even a BG with no spice, no cards, and no units might, with its shared Voice power, provide the key ingredient to a win.

Just as a point of interest, I have to rule on a "single winner" in the WBC Dune tournament final, even when it's an alliance win (which it pretty much always is.) Because there's only one 1st place plaque to give out.

Among the winning factions, my tie breakers for choosing the single winner are, in order:

* Most strongholds controlled* Most tokens on board* Most spice in hand* Most cards in hand* Most leaders available* Random die roll

I figure most strongholds controlled is clearly the best way to pick "who won the most" if you feel you have to do that. However, this also tends to favor some factions more than others. This is the primary reason why the BG are the winningest faction in my 16-year records (mostly in alliances), but they rarely win the final because they tend to support their ally with the Voice instead of being the primary military faction themselves.

My group hasn't house-ruled allies out of Dune, but we very rarely ally. I read this thread when it was new, and wasn't going to comment, but my mind wandered while mowing the lawn yesterday and I was thinking about how my group plays, and why we never ally.

And in the interest of those who may want a set of house rules that leads to great six man games with solo victories, here's how my group plays.

1) It's always at least six players. Once in a blue moon we get seven and add our own Bene Tleilaxu variant.

2) Add Shield Wall as sixth stronghold. 3 of 6 for solo victory, 4 of 6 if folks ally (which, as I wrote, very rarely happens; in fact, we don't even bother to acknowledge the Nexus when a worm comes up; someone contemplating an alliance would have to speak up quickly to stop the flow of the game).

5) Play all optional rules and advanced game, essentially, except what we call "spice battles." You don't have to support troops with spice in battle.

6) To keep the game moving we've introduced 5 minute turn timers for the movement round in the last few years (4 of our core group of 7 have been playing together since the game came out; I joined in 1992).

I've seen all six original factions win with this set of house rules, and most of us have won at least once with all the factions. I've been blessed with a group who love a challenge. They don't bemoan the perceived weakness of the Fremen - heck no! They can't wait to get out to the desert and ride a worm!

Having said that, the usual suspects do win more often than not. Over the years, it's probably Atreides at 25%, Harkonnen and Emperor at 20% each, Guild and Bene Gesserit at 15% each, and the Fremen at 5%.

Our games tend to be quite bloody, with several unsuccessful "game plays" before victory is won. We usually get three games in over a ten hour session.

And in the interest of those who may want a set of house rules that leads to great six man games with solo victories, here's how my group plays.

This is a very common ruleset I think, I've played several times with exactly the same rules and it's what I would choose (with some Fremen balance tweaks). But nothing here would discourage alliances; that just seems like a part of the groupthink with your group. The win results alone (thanks for that btw, very interesting) would suggest that whoever draws Fremen, or even BG or Guild in your group, should be pressing hard for an alliance. Even from the other end... nobody wants that crazy Voice power? Or to partake in a Guild special victory?

I thought of doing a sort of points scoring system at the end. So that players who win in an alliance may decide an overall winner.

spice = 1 point per 2 spicestronghold controlled alone = 5 pointsstronghold controlled with an ally present = 3 pointstreachery cards in hand = 2 points per cardtroops on the board = 1 point per trooptroops in the tanks = -1 point per troopleaders in the tanks = 1 point per leadertroops in the polar sink = +1 per trooptraitor card in hand = 3 points